You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
From Fat Surplus to Ruin in Ten Years
2011-05-01
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely.
But then, dozens of interest groups all set about spending the excess, each thinking the whole thing was theirs. Add in WOT and Hopeless Security, a recession, and there you have it.
Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation's budget problems.
They didn't ask me, but I would've agreed.
The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue.
How did I know this was coming? It's the WaPo!
Bush said as he accepted the GOP nomination in August 2000 - "The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money."
Buffoon! It's gubamint's money! After a lot more Bush Bashing, we get to the root cause:
William Hoagland, who was for years a top budget aide to Domenici and other GOP Senate leaders, said it is simplistic to think today's fiscal problems began just 10 years ago. In 1976, as a young CBO analyst, Hoagland produced a long-term simulation that showed entitlement costs gradually overwhelming the rest of the federal budget.
Seems some of here figured that out already.

Summarizing a chart in a graphic sidebar in the article - Legislative spending added $8.4 trillion, economic and technical costs were $3.6 trillion, and "other" was $0.7 trillion, or $700 billion.

Of the spending, $2.8 trillion was several tax cuts, more spending totaled $3.4 trillion, stimulus (only) $700 billion, and $1.4 trillion in borrowing.

They're silent on ObamaCare, but that's revenue-neutral, I heard. [cough]

Bush's fault, Obama's fault, nobody's fault - I don't care. Fix it!
Posted by:Bobby

#11  P2k, of course it wouldn't always work out in favor of the party one prefers. But an appointed Senate would more reliably reflect the national mood, including rural and remote areas; a directly elected one has a built-in slant toward states with large urban concentrations (as well as dead and undocumented voters). Corruption may be a risk with the first, but fraud is a risk with the second. Take your pick.

The Framers accepted that the human condition is flawed, so the goal was just to limit the damage. They also sought to create a republic, not a democracy. The New Jersey-Virginia debate is covered in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, which sounds boring until you realize the Framers debated exactly this point just as furiously, and much more eloquently.
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-05-01 22:53  

#10  Hence, absent the 17th amendment, Republicans would now control the Senate too, and states' interests would be more accurately represented.

That's the Donk line of thinking. The assumption that 'We' will always be in power. What happens when it isn't so? That the problem. The object is never create a situation where someone you prefer not to have such power can get it even if it means you don't get it either.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-05-01 22:19  

#9  No matter how rich you are, it is still possible to spend it all.
Posted by: Iblis   2011-05-01 21:39  

#8  The Constitution originally provided for Senators to be appointed by state legislatures, to represent states' interests at the national level. The concern was protecting states' rights form federal encroachment.

This was the New Jersey plan, proposed in opposition to the Virginia plan, which sought direct election of both Senators and Representatives because this would favor more populous states, giving them disproportionately more power at the national level.

The 17th amendment repealed the New Jersey plan and adopted the Virginia plan, after the big-state vs. small-state issue had already been settled over a century earlier, and is just as relevant today.

Currently, 26 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans; 16 by Dems; and 8 are split. Hence, absent the 17th amendment, Republicans would now control the Senate too, and states' interests would be more accurately represented.
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-05-01 20:38  

#7  ...direct election of senators

Yep, that pesky amendment. Had that been in place both Senators from MA would be 'D'. Look at the quality replacement for the One out of IL which was an appointment [not to mention the Roman circus of soliciting bids for the job]. And the recent one in Alaska wouldn't have had to bother to find a judge to reinterpret the law to maintain her reign. Terrible that the people should ever be trusted with a choice. /sarc off

Go back and read why that was put in place and discover the corrupt practices that gave birth to it.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-05-01 19:11  

#6  The seminal great mistake was perhaps letting tricksy, bottom feeding lawyers be elected to public office.
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2011-05-01 18:41  

#5  Oh sure, the Great Society programs of the 1960s were a huge mistake. But FDR's New Deal in the 1930s laid the foundations for that. And those were made possible by, among other things, the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax and direct election of senators) in 1913, and 20th century progressivism in general. And so on, all the way back to 1803 (Marbury v. Madison), or even 1789, when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, arguably the grand-daddy of all subsequent big mistakes.

Just want to establish how big we're talking when we refer to "biggest mistakes in American history"!
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-05-01 17:49  

#4  The inauguration of JFK I think.
Posted by: Aussie Mike   2011-05-01 17:24  

#3  I wonder if he is referring to "The Great Society*"?

That's what I'd call it - greatest mistake of ... quite a while.

*The Great Society was a set of domestic programs enacted in the United States on the initiative of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but differed sharply in types of programs enacted.

Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy's New Frontier. Johnson's success depended on his skills of persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in the 1964 election that brought in many new liberals to Congress.
Posted by: Bobby   2011-05-01 16:54  

#2  We went off the gold standard in 1971, 40 years ago. What other biggest mistake do you mean?
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-05-01 16:31  

#1  Seems some of here figured that out already.

AuH2O knew it was a ponzi scheme. And we're coming up on the 50th anniversary of one of the biggest mistakes in American history.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-05-01 16:15  

00:00